One of the problems with articles from magazines like the Training Journal is that there are too few from L & D Managers of major companies and too many from training consultants describing their products and their achievements in a self serving way. However, I have to remember how we wrote similar articles in the early days of MTP – including one where we suggested that all business schools were out of touch! – and that sometimes such articles contain a few ‘gems’ that are of value to all.
One such article is in the December edition. It covers the problems of a small training organisation trying to provide value for major company clients and the ways in which this can be achieved and maintained. Though directed mainly at trainers, it can be turned around into a specification for company L & D Managers who are looking for a responsive training company; in fact I would have preferred that slant within the article.
There is a lot of standard, superficial stuff about specifying quantifiable outcomes and transferring learning which I have been critical of in previous reviews; these goals are clearly valid and important but so many trainers make them appear as new ideas that are easy to achieve. They are not and it would be better for the long term client relationship to admit the extent of the joint challenge at the outset.
The interesting ideas from the article are these:
- Don’t try to sell solutions, listen to the need first
- Understand the client’s business and don’t charge for the investment of time to achieve this
- Represent the client business during training delivery
- Go the extra mile to meet the client need without worrying about minor costs
We would not agree with all these recommendations in every circumstance but we do share many of the values that underpin them. We would argue that, depending on the circumstances and the nature of the business, a sharing of the investment in time to understand the client business is often fairer. And though we like to be in a situation where we are representing the client’s views, some companies also want us to challenge current practices and encourage debate about change. This is a fine balance that has to be agreed up front for each course and client.
We do however agree with one interesting definition of success which the author puts forward. He says that he knows he has won when people on courses ask questions about their own organisation. We would also add that this is only the first stage; the second requirement is that the trainer can answer the question credibly, in a way that meets the learning objective and keeps the client happy. This is not as easy as it seems and often needs a long and trusting partnership to achieve.
It would have been good if this article could have made more of the challenges and the pitfalls involved in getting this balance right.
To access this article go to http://www.trainingjournal.com/tj/1836.html
